Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [HL].


Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I reassure my noble and learned friend that we shall come back to it shortly. I hope that we are able to deploy the arguments more fully in Amendment No. 48. I find it difficult that we must leave the schedule to the vagaries of an order-making process. To have these new serious crime prevention orders is a serious step. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew referred to the need for flexibility on some occasions. He is right. The Government argue for flexibility throughout, but the Government’s flexibility tends to be a straitjacket for everybody else in how they can or cannot behave. We shall need to look at this more closely, particularly when we have had an opportunity to look at the Government’s justification for what is in the schedule when we get to Amendment No. 48. Forthe moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 agreed to. Schedule 1 [Serious offences]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c770 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Crime Charities Companies Crown Prosecution Service Firearms Environment Exemptions Insolvency Pollution Property Mental health Poaching Registration Serious Fraud Office Robbery Serious Organised Crime Agency Angling High Court Northern Ireland Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Serious crime prevention orders
Legislation
Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk